Government & Communications

Imagine you've been detained at customs, waiting to cross the border. Or maybe you've been pulled over for a traffic violation. An officer waves your cellphone at you. “Look at this. Is this yours?” he asks. Before you can respond, a tiny infrared sensor in the phone has scanned your face. Matching those readings against the copy of your face that is stored in its archive, the phone concludes that its owner is trying to unlock it. The device lowers its defenses, surrendering its contents in moments to the law enforcement officer holding your phone. “You have to work pretty hard to get me to put my fingerprint on a reader,” said Chris Calabrese, vice president for policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “You have to work less hard to put a phone in front of somebody's face.”

The US government on banned the use of a Russian brand of security software by federal agencies amid concerns the company has ties to state-sponsored cyberespionage activities, according to US officials. Acting Homeland Security secretary Elaine Duke ordered that Kaspersky Lab software be barred from federal civilian government networks, giving agencies a timeline to get rid of it, apparently. Duke ordered the scrub on the grounds that the company has connections to the Russian government and its software poses a security risk.

“The Department is concerned about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies, and requirements under Russian law that allow Russian intelligence agencies to request or compel assistance from Kaspersky and to intercept communications transiting Russian networks,” the department said. “The risk that the Russian government, whether acting on its own or in collaboration with Kaspersky, could capitalize on access provided by Kaspersky products to compromise federal information and information systems directly implicates U.S. national security.”

An official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has instructed employees not to speak directly with members of the press. Several health journalists quickly condemned the CDC move, calling it “really disturbing” and a “gag order." A late August e-mail by a CDC public affairs officer directs staff to route any correspondence with journalists—“everything from formal interview requests to the most basic of data requests”—through the communication office at its Atlanta headquarters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) sued the federal government in hopes of curbing the wide-ranging ability of federal agents to search and seize the smartphones and computers of travelers — including US citizens — as they arrive on American soil but have not yet formally entered the country.

The practice, which remains rare but has grown more frequent in recent years, allows agents in border zones such as the arrivals areas of international airports to sidestep the Supreme Court’s landmark Riley decision in 2014 requiring that law enforcement officers get search warrants before examining the contents of digital devices.That ruling grew from the long-running contention by civil rights groups that modern digital devices carry such massive amounts of data and such sensitive records — including photographs, location data, e-mails, videos and Web browsing histories — that they should be afforded full Fourth Amendment protections against searches and seizures without warrants.

Sept 13's suit demands stricter legal standards for device searches in border areas. They argue that relatively lax rules established for searching luggage or goods bought in duty-free shops should not apply to modern smartphones, tablets and laptop computers routinely carried across borders. The suit says that the number of such searches — conducted by Customs and Border Protection agents, sometimes with the assistance of Immigration and Customs Enforcement — has grown sharply in recent years and is on track to hit about 30,000 in the current fiscal year. That remains a tiny fraction of the several hundred million travelers who enter the nation every year.

Can calling government offices or officials to insult them — especially after being told to stop — be punished the way that calling a private individual to insult them might be? I think the answer should be “no,” and the lower court precedents on the subject seem to agree; but in two recent cases, government officials seem to think that such speech can indeed be criminalized.

Next Century Cities released a playbook on tech-powered civic engagement detailing lessons learned over the past year among its three Benton Next Generation Engagement Award winners: Austin (TX), Louisville (KY) and Raleigh (NC). The Washington, D.C.-based broadband advocacy group wants the guide to serve as a checklist for cities’ future projects. Communities are encouraged to engage all stakeholders in a civic tech project area, collaborate across sectors and have their approach match project function.

Executives from a Los Angeles-based tech company said they are weighing whether to fight a judge's order to provide prosecutors with e-mail addresses and other information from people who visited an anti-Trump website in the months leading to Inauguration Day. The company, DreamHost, filed a motion with District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin recently requesting that he put his order on hold while they consider whether to appeal. But prosecutors, concerned that such a delay could hinder their cases against dozens charged in Inauguration Day riots, have asked the judge to force DreamHost to turn over the data immediately.

In a year where DreamHost was looking forward to celebrating its 20th anniversary, the company instead has been propelled into a high-profile privacy rights case as a result of managing the server for a website that authorities say facilitated Inauguration Day rioting. DreamHost co-founder and co-Chief Executive Dallas Kashuba said in an interview that the potential implications go beyond this case. He said there is concern among tech companies that Internet users could become fearful of visiting websites if they know government authorities can monitor such information.

A pair of senators want to make sure the public that relies increasingly on mobile devices for can access government websites. Sens Maggie Hassan (D-NH) and Cory Gardner (R-CO) introduced the Connected Government Act to the Senate last week. The bill would mandate all new federal websites be mobile-friendly, and would also call upon the General Services Administration to report agency compliance to Congress within 18 months of enactment. The bill is the Senate companion to House legislation introduced in May by Rep Robin Kelly (D-IL) and co-sponsor Rep Frank Pallone (D-NJ). The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is scheduled to consider the House version on Sept 13.

Modern technology is helping soldiers push to the limits of their physical capabilities on the battlefield, but advancements in communication and assimilation of data still rely on a 1990s-era legacy premise: a networked connection to a military data center. Today’s battlefields require significant information processing capabilities, such as the sending of images, videos and sensor data, yet extensive data processing and exchange relies on dependable network connections and bandwidth capabilities that don’t always exist. This is a problem the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—the Defense Department’s research arm—has grappled with for years, but recent contract awards through its dispersed computing (DCOMP) program may be the first steps the U.S. military takes toward mitigating this problem.

Since 2011, Silicon Valley-based software firm Palantir has helped the Los Angeles Police Department analyze data, ranging from license plates photos, to rap sheets, traffic tickets, listings of foreclosed properties and more. The company, which also works with government agencies such as the CIA and FBI, is quietly transforming how police operate. Palantir doesn't reveal how many clients are using its tools, but police departments in both California and New York have previously worked with the company. Sarah Brayne, a sociology professor at the University of Texas in Austin, conducted more than 100 interviews of officers and civilian employees. What follows are six of Bayne's most striking findings:
1. Surveillance today is unprecedented
2. Citizens without police contact can be tracked
3. Sharing data helps cops do their jobs
4. Not all officers love the new surveillance tools
5. Big data has a role in inequality
6. Laws haven't kept up with technology